Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/158/2023

Vikram Panwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

BlueStone Jewellery and Lifestyle Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

17 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

                                                          Complaint Case No. 158 of 2023

                                                         Date of Institution: 15.12.2023

                                                          Date of Decision:   17.12.2024       

 

Vikram Panwar S/o Yogender Panwar,R/o 112, Ward No. 16, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri

                                                                   ….Complainant.

Versus

Bluestone Jewellery and Lifestyle Private Limited, 302 3^rd Floor, Dhantak Plaza, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra,400059

•  

 

          COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -     Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                        (Proceeded under Section 64 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Present:      Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Amit Kumar, Advocate for OP.

 

ORDER:-

              

                  Vikram Panwar (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “the OP) with the averments that on 05.11.2023 placed  an order for a 50 gram 24 KT Gold coin through their E-commerce platform (bluestone.com) at an gold rate of Rs.6292/- per gram. It is averred that for the said purchase, the complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 3,25,122/- as onetime payment in favour of OP through online channel. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,15,653/- as product value and a sum of Rs. 9469/- as IGST. For the said purchase invoice was generated on 09.11.2023 having invoice number-MUMONL2324025748, order ID B7FP0AOL. Thereafter on next day i.e. 10.11.2023 received an email that the product has been shipped through Bluestone Extramile having tracking ID-5887407460 and expected delivery date was mentioned as 22.11.2023. It is further alleged that on 15.11.2023 at 9:17 AM, he received an Email stating that his order 1162667 has been delivered successfully. It is worthwhile to mention here that no product was delivered at that period of time and thereafter the complainant immediately reverted back to the same stating that he has not received any product as of now. Thereafter in the afternoon a packet was delivered by the executive of the OP company and when he asked for an open box delivery the executive/delivery partner refused stating that it is against the policy and left immediately. It is worthwhile to mention that the complainant had place time alongwith his signatures on the delivery receipt while is available with the OP. When the complainant opened the said package he found out that instead of 50 gram coin a 5 gram coin was delivered to him and thereafter he immediately wrote an email stating the above-mentioned facts alongwith the images and invoice of the product received. As a precautionary measure the complainant had asked a friend to make a video of opening the said package from his mobile in which the invoice number/product details of 50 gram coin, name of OP company is clearly visible and that opening of sealed packed package is also clearly visible in which a 5 gram coin is present. It is further averred that despite complaints and several Emails and also shared the un-boxing video to the OP, the OP instead of taking any action shrug off their liability by simply stating that no wrong item was sent. It was further averred that complainant sent a legal notice on 22.11.2023 to the opposite party but opposite party gave unsatisfactory reply via Email. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite party, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and as such, he had to file the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed his written statement.  The OPs in written statement had taken preliminary objections like maintainability, locus-standi and suppression of material facts.  It is averred that the shipment was delivered by the employee namely Md. Asad Raza vide employee ID EM2009 at the delivery address as mentioned in order ship. It is further averred that at the time handed over to the complainant the shipment was properly packed. It was further stated that open box delivery is against norms of the company. It is pertinent to mention here that OP always believes in providing best quality and best service to its customers and never compromised with quality. The video which has been placed on record has been fabricated and manipulated. It is clearly shown in the video “when customer ripped the inner bag from the other side and flipped it, the bag is reflected open from the other side which is practically not possible and also the bag is not so weak that it ripped in a straight line cut, it means the bag was opened earlier before making video. The video was made in the absence of the delivery person of the OP. It is further averred that OP has cooperated with the complainant and assured the cross check/investigate this matter but no fault was found. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for the dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                In the evidence, the complainant tendered affidavits as Ex. CW-1/A, Ex.CW-2/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence on 03.05.2024.

4.                Learned counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A-1 of Shri Amit Mittal employee/AR of M/s Bluestone Jewellery & Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd and documents Ex.RW1/A to Ex.RW1/C and closed the  evidence on 21.08.2024.

5.                     We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

6.                     After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, I am of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. There is no dispute between the parties pertaining to the contract as buyer and seller being Ex.C1 and Ex.RW1/A. The sale invoice of the parties. The OP submitted about believe in providing the best quality and best service to its customers and never compromise with quality. By placing on record Ex.RW-1/C, pendrive, containing packing of article, claimed to send the same and quality wise article to buyer as per contract between them. Notwithstanding, the complainant averred that when he opened the said package, he found it that instead of 50grams coin, a 5 grams coin was delivered to him, as annexed  vide Ex.C4 that pendrive with video footage in which it is clearly visible in the video that there was 5 grams of gold instead of 50 grams. Although by Ex.C2 email and Ex.C6 legal notice clearly found the sincerity and genuine problem of the complainant for which he made his sincere efforts to resolve his problem but the OP did not pay any heed by one pretext or other which caused gross deficiency, mal-trade practice, physical and mental harassment to the complainant. I want discuss some important provisions of the law which will help in solving this matter and bring my observation to a conclusion, which are as follows

Section 36 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 deals with the Rules as to delivery which envisages the obligation of Seller to insure the delivery of goods in safe and proper manner upto buyers.  

Section 37 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 deals with the delivery of wrong quality  whereby the seller delivers to the buyer a quantity of goods less than  he contracted  to sell, the buyer may reject them.

Section 61 &Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with electronic or digital record and admissibility of electronic records respectively whereby it is emphasized  that an electronic or digital record shall have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as other documents and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.

7.       Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances and as discussed hereinbefore, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and the complainant is entitled to relief by OP which is directed as  under :-

1. To pay Rs.3,25,122/- (value of 50 gram 24 KT Gold Coin) alongwith interest @9% per annum from the invoice date i.e. 09.11.2023 till its realization and complainant is also directed to refund 5 gram gold coin to the OP.
2. To pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) on account of mental agony, harassment etc.
3. To pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) as litigation expenses.

8.           The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt the copy of this order, failing which further interest @12% will be paid on all above amount mentioned in clause no. i to iii by the OP for the delayed period. 

9.                     If the order of this Commission is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to file execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the defaulting party will be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not less than one month, but which may extend to three years or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees, but which may extend to Rs. one lac or with both. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules and this order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.